Standing Committee B

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]

New Clause 3 - Support in cases of discrimination

`The Disability Rights Commission shall provide advice and assistance for persons seeming to them to have a prima facie case of discrimination against any person or body regulated by this Act, to pursue their case through litigation.'.[Mr. Boswell.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Tim Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The three new clauses selected for debate this morning all raise important issues, possibly in ascending order of importance. My slightly hoarse voice might suggest to hon. Members that the Committee need not be detained unduly long, but it is important to rehearse the arguments. 
 New clause 3 is about the Disability Rights Commission's role in helping people to make complaints. It is not explicit in the new clause, but we agree with the Minister that conciliation, discussion, accommodation, reasonable adjustment and other such concepts are the sensible way to approach discrimination, at least in the first instance. The new clause is not an attempt to provide a trigger-happy solution or to encourage people to go to litigation without consideration, let alone an attempt to provide open season for those who go to law on the chance that they may make money out of the process. 
 In what I believe to have been a sensible start to its work, the commission recognises that although jaw-jaw is a good idea most of the time, war-war is occasionally necessary. If we are to have disability discrimination legislation such as we introduced in 1995, and if we are to have a Disability Rights Commission with the general duty of promoting the interests of persons in asserting their disability rights, there must be an element of sanction. 
 The commission's method of operation is critical, and it is clearly right to begin with the conciliatory route, although it will sometimes be necessary to switch modes to other routes. I am sure that everyone understands the distinction that I am making. In the real world, such institutions will have other things to do. The commission will have a mainly educational front but, while busily getting on with its job in a perfectly proper manner, it may have allowed itself to discriminate, perhaps unconsciously or institutionally. It is not a matter of people getting up in the morning, addressing themselves in the shaving mirror and saying, ``I am going to be nasty to disabled people today.''[Interruption.]

Jacqui Smith: I do not do that.

Tim Boswell: For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that a number of hon. Members, on both sides and of both genders, have dissociated themselves from my remarks. Let us say that those people are combing their hair

Tom Levitt: I dissociate myself from that.[Laughter.]

Tim Boswell: That jocular exchange has woken me up; it has also made the entirely serious point that we are all different.
 For institutions, there is a huge difference between trying to do a decent job and getting on and doing it. Those who have anything to do with education know that that is the norm. Perhaps we need an outsider to point out that a pupil with a disability has not been treated sensitively. The alternative is the wilful approach of saying, ``We are not really interested in this case. Taking us to court is the only way that you will get any remedy, sunshine.'' I do not like that approach, although if people feel constrained because resources are restricted or for other similar reasons, they may occasionally resort to that tactic. It is important to the work of the Disability Rights Commission to keep the broad working distinction in mind. That will apply more comprehensively, given the extension of the provision across education. I do not think that I have said anything contentious so far. 
 We have repeatedly stated our concern that the roots of remedy for discrimination for people over 16 are different from those for people under 16--in one case there is a tribunal, and in the other a court. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), rehearsed her reasons on the issue the other day, and I do not seek to re-open that debate. 
 In relation to educational services, it is incontestable that people over 16 will have to go to the courts to assert their rights. They would be wise to raise matters informally through an institution's procedures, which I hope will have improved. The existence of those procedures in, for example, further education colleges is an important safeguard against possible litigation for the institution. Alternatively, people over 16 could ring up the DRC on the hotline and say that they have not been treated fairly. An informal investigation may take place to take some soundings. At some point, push will come to shove and it may be necessary to take an institution to court. When Bert Massie started at the DRC, I suggested to him that the conciliation route should, of course, be usedwe did not disagreebut that, if I were him, I would find one or two really nasty cases to take to court in the first year to show some teeth. He did that. 
 If an ordinary private citizen with a problem happens to be at a further or higher educational institution, and it has not been resolved easily internally or through the friendly assistance of the DRC, he eventually has a choice. It may be an unwelcome choice, assuming that he is not merely on a fishing expedition to embarrass an institution or to try to win punitive damages for himself. He will want legal redress through the courts, as that is the route open to him. 
 The subject could take us wide of the debate, but we all know that a private individual faced with possible litigation is at a disadvantage compared with an institution. Whether he is suing the Inland Revenue, going to the general commissioners, taking on Railtrack or fighting a Department, one hand is tied behind his back. He is a small player dealing with a big player. We need not over-dramatise that, and I do not suggest that someone who makes a complaint is necessarily right to do so. However, we must consider levelling the playing field to some extent, to ensure that if someone pursues a case in good faith, with prima facie evidence of discrimination against him, he should not be deterred from making the case simply because he does not have the resources or firepower to take it to court. 
 I hope that the DRC already has powers to assist on other cases of discrimination under the part II or, more typically, part III duties. They have not been used much, and perhaps should not be, but we must ensure that they are available to assist the individual citizen in the pursuit of educational remedies in a prima facie case. 
 No one suggests that such recourse should be the first recourse, or that it should be universally available. However, it is necessary to have some reserve provision whereby, as lawyers would say, the DRC can be joined in the action with the individual complainant in order to secure justice for him, which is the common concern of the Committee.

Margaret Hodge: We do not need to spend long on this issue, as I believe that I can give the necessary assurances to the hon. Gentleman. I agree that we want to be able to resolve cases of discrimination in schools, colleges, universities or anywhere else in the education service outside the realms of judicial processes. By framing the legislation around the powers of the DRC, we have modernised the institution so that it has better powers than either the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Commission for Racial Equality, which work in separate but related areas.
 There are two aspects to the modernisation. First, the DRC has to run a conciliation service, which it has just established. We shall have to wait and see how effective that is. I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that conciliation is a better way to resolve issues. Secondly, we established in the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 the power for the Commission to enter into legally binding agreements with either employers or suppliers of goods and services, outside the realms of judicial processes. Those agreements are to be entered into after discussion and negotiation. 
 Although it will not be necessary to go to court or to the new special educational needs and disability tribunal, should the employer or supplier of goods and services--perhaps an education authority--break the agreement, a case could be taken through the judicial process. We see the area as one of changing cultures. As going to court at too early a stage is not always the best way to change cultures, we have attempted to resolve issues of discrimination outside the courts, and in the process modernise the institution. We shall have to see how well that works. 
 I also agree with the hon. Member for Daventry that it is imperative that we have the facility to take legal cases where that is appropriate. We would not propose the Bill if we did not believe that to be true. The basis of the legislation is that our experience in schools, colleges and universities suggests that without a basic framework of rights set in law, unacceptable discrimination occurs. We need that framework of rights to ensure that we can change practice, policies and procedures within organisations. 
 Section 7 of the Disability Rights Commission Act, as amended by the Bill, permits the DRC to give assistance in discrimination proceedings brought under what will become the new part IV of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The DRC will have the power to assist individuals with actual or potential proceedings. Section 7 also sets out the grounds on which the DRC can grant an application for assistance in relation to proceedings, and deals with the range of assistance that the DRC may provide if it grants an application. The types of assistance that can be provided or arranged are legal advice; legal or other representation; seeking to procure a settlement and any other assistance thought appropriate by the DRC. 
 If the DRC is to provide such assistance, the applicant must have brought, or be proposing to bring, a claim of unlawful discrimination under the DDA 1995. Further criteria must also be met: the case must raise a question of principle, or it must be unreasonable to expect the applicant to deal with the case unaidedbecause of its complexity, because of the applicant's position in relation to another party or for some other reasonor some other special consideration must make it appropriate for the DRC to provide assistance. 
 The DRC should take cases, but should also have discretion. The new clause would, by the use of the word ``shall'' rather than ``may'', remove that discretion. It would compel the Disability Rights Commission to give assistance whenever it perceived a prima facie case of discrimination. That might result in its having to provide so much assistance in this sphere of its duties that a huge drain on its resources would result, impairing its ability properly to discharge its other functions. 
 The commission is approaching its first birthday and it has taken 40 cases so far. Its legal committee has decided to grant assistance in about half the cases that have been presented to it. It has exercised its discretion with some care, and expects to take about 75 cases in its second year. The new clause would remove its discretion, and, unless the hon. Gentleman wants to put up taxes even further, I do not think it would be possible to fund the amount of litigation that might land at the commission's door as a result. It is not a risk that we are prepared to take. 
 The hon. Gentleman may, nevertheless, be reassured to hear that the DRC helpline is open to alleducation providers, pupils, their parents, students and adult learners. Helpline adviceshort of legal advicewill be freely available. The hon. Gentleman will know, because I said this at a meeting that he attended the other night, that in its first year the Disability Rights Commission received something in the region of 50,000 calls on its helpline and expects double that number in the second year of operation, as it becomes better known. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

Tim Boswell: The Minister has done exactly what I hoped she would do, and has made it clear how the arrangement will work. She has provided perfectly satisfactory assurances and our intentions are at one. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4 - Consideration of issues of adequacy and discrimination

`Issues of adequacy and discrimination in connection with the planning and provision of educational and related services to a disabled pupil on transition from the school sector to further education, may either be considered by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal or may be the subject of civil proceedings, according to the wishes of the pupil concerned.'.[Mr. Boswell.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Tim Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause deals with larger and different issues from those raised previously, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide assurances on them. Perhaps I may divide my concerns into two categories: procedure and substance. 
 Our wish as regards procedurewhich we have several times expressed, and on which Ministers have typically responded helpfullyis that there should be no black holes in the Bill. I drafted the provision as I did because it occurred to me that there might be a hiatus at the crucial point of transition from school to the post-16 worldtypically but not always the world of further education. An individual might not be properly served and the planning of the transition might not be well covered. 
 By definition, things become more complex, as distinct from complicated, for people with disabilities when they move into post-compulsory education. It may be a matter of physical provision for someone with a mobility problem or a visual or hearing impairment. If a child has been well catered for at school, either in mainstream provision or some dedicated special provision or in a special school, it is important to ensure that similar provision is sustained into the next stage of his or her education. Such young people may have the potential for high attainments and may go on to higher education in the future, but they may also require assistance with their mobility or their sight or the replacement of their sight. That has to be thought out, which is why we were considering transitional planning as far back the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. 
 Equally, there are real issues for people with learning disabilities. I want to emphasise that point, because I do not think that they have had sufficient attention in the rather truncated discussions that we have had in Committee. I am sure that both Ministers and most members of the Committee will have gone to further education colleges and seen terrifically good provision for young people with learning difficulties. Often, their parents have a large family in which the last sibling has Down's syndrome. The parents worry about what will happen as the young person grows up and goes out into the world, moves away from the world of protected transport and has to do business with adults other than his or her teachers. That is a very sensitive time, and that is why planning the transition is so important. 
 The new clause is about redress. I have drafted it in a legalistic and slightly quibbling way to find out whether there is complete coverage between school and further education. What, for example, happens during the summer holidays that intervene between those two types of provision? Is there an overlap, or is there a potential gap? As it takes two to tango, I have also suggested that the school should be aligned with the further education college or other institution, and that one way of enforcing that might be for the young person in question to go to the tribunal for school-related aspects of the transition or to the courts in connection with the follow-on further education provision. That is an artificial way of presenting the issue, but it is important that Ministers apply themselves to it and think about it.

John Hayes: In support of my hon. Friend's argument, I want to draw the Committee's attention to what happens if a young person's difficulties emerge gradually. In the case of a brain-injured personbrain injuries are a particular interest of minenew difficulties might emerge at different stages of that person's development. Although the short-term impact of brain injury is easily recognised and very apparent, as someone moves through the educational system there may be new challenges and new difficulties. Without communication between institutions, a continuum of care and appropriate study of people's changing needs, people in those circumstances may well be disadvantaged.

Tim Boswell: My hon. Friend complements my argument very well. It may be difficult, in purely legal terms, not to shift the legal burden from one provider to another at some stage, and I think that he understands that. Nevertheless, it is important that the two providers and the transitional planning that links them form a continuum of provision. To make a simple point, there should be access to records and other materials. Although such documents would be to some extent confidential, access to them would enable people to examine the development of the young person's situation and to take the necessary remedial action.
 There is the legal issue of whether somebody is responsible at all times for the young person's educational provision. If so, is the power of remediation clearly in the hands of the tribunal or the courts? We do not want people to fall through the system and fail to get redress. The Committee will note my suggestion that, at that point of transition, the matter should be determined by the wishes of the pupil. As pupils move from the special educational needs of childhood, they should become more empowered and, unless they are legally incapable, they should be able to express a view about what they want to do. Their contribution to the planning of that transition is important, because they have views and will know what they will be most comfortable with. For example, they may wish to go a particular institution with their colleagues rather than to a strange institution where they may feel less comfortable. 
 That brings me neatly to what I might loosely call the real world. Some transitional duties already exist but, despite the moral force of the new planning duties that local authorities will be required to fulfil under the Bill, even if transitional planning is not honoured more in the breach than the observance, such duties may not always be as well fulfilled as they should be. LEAs have a duty to drive forward the transitional planning machinery, to hold meetings and consultations, to draw up plans and to prepare young people for further or subsequent education. 
 Some time ago, in a written question, I asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), whether local authorities were fulfilling their plans. I am not asking her to name and shame particular LEAs, but I realise that, in the real world, the word on the street would certainly be that quite a few authorities are delinquent in fulfilling their existing legal responsibilities. The hon. Lady replied by saying, in effect, that if something was wrong the Department would take action. 
 I have no doubt that the Department could, would and certainly should take action in extreme cases. However, I warn the Committee that those duties are not performed as well or as thoroughly as they should be, and it is hugely important to young people with special needs that they are fulfilled. I leave it to the Committee to decide whether such cases always require LEAs to intervene rather than to facilitate, but the most important thing is to tie it up trilaterally between the school, further education provider and the pupil concernedand, if necessary, the parents, to ensure a happy transition. 
 Underlying our concern is that, whatever the Bill says, and whatever the existing rights of young people with special educational needs, let alone any additional rights including the disability rights that we are about to give them, the system does not work as well or as sensitively as it should. That is a pity, and it is to be regretted. Whatever legislation we might passincluding new clause 4 if the Committee thought it appropriateit would not of itself transform the situation. The law does not make people comply; perhaps it should. As the Minister said in another context, it is often a matter of making a cultural change to ensure its effectiveness. 
 I would welcome comments on the deficiencies of the new clause, particularly from those interested in this crucial area of transition. Transition arrangements will vary from one local authority or education authority to another. We need to set a better example. Whenever possible the Department needs to provide mechanisms and encouragement to ensure that the system works better. As I said, this is not the time or place to name or shame, but anything that we can do to point local authorities and providers in the right direction will be hugely important.

Tom Levitt: I am well aware that the Committee made considerable progress during my absence on Tuesday, so I hope that I shall not slow it down today.
 I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has got so far in his speech without mentioning the learning and skill councils, because my understanding is that they have a significant role in the transitional phase.

Tim Boswell: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is right. I have been involved with the Learning and Skills Council for six months, and I have not mentioned it this morning. However, it is important to see how everything fits together. The council must provide secure provision for post-16 education, and has a planning duty during the transition. I am sure that it could, if necessary, impose sanctions against delinquent providers. There are several players in the field, and we need to secure a legal framework that prevents anyone from falling into a black hole between the providers and the regulatory authorities, whether the local education authority or the Learning and Skills Council.
 We must also ensure, as gently as possible, that existing legislation, as well as the Bill, does what it is supposed to do. No local authority or school is perfect, but I cannot help feeling that this area has not done as well as it should have done, which is probably why we are legislating. More attention to this critical matter in the Committee and the world outside would be beneficial.

John Hayes: I cannot match my hon. Friend's eloquence, and I feel like Plato following Socrates. The great advantage of Socrates was that he never wrote anything down. I do not know whether that is true of my hon. Friend, but I feel like a pupil standing before the master.

Tim Boswell: I shall not take my hon. Friend's analogy as offensive, but I may be able to help the Committee. I remind my hon. Friend of an exchange between our late and enjoyable colleague Derek Enright and me in the Standing Committee that considered the Education Bill in 1992, when that juxtaposition of Socrates and Plato arose. He was surprised that I laughed at his intervention, and I had to explain to the Committee that Socrates was my old dog and Plato was my current dog.

Mr Bill O'Brien: Order. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will not continue that discussion.

John Hayes: No, Mr. O'Brien, I have no intention of going into detail about Athenian philosophers.
 I want to emphasise two points that are pertinent to my hon. Friend's contribution. First, we know that the transition period in people's education is critical to their progress. I am thinking not only of people with special needs, but pupils and students generally. The most recent report of the Office for Standards in Education paid particular attention to the difficulties faced by students as they move from one institution to another, such as moving information between institutions, communications between them, and the shock of new social and cultural factors. That is particularly so for people with special educational needs. 
 Imagine children moving from the protective atmosphere of a special school into further education to pursue a course in a larger institution with a very different atmosphere and a larger range of characters and personalities than they have been used to. People who are particularly vulnerable will find the transition more challenging than will mainstream students, who also find it difficult We know that the transition is a problem and that it produces particular needs. Ofsted has suggested that there is a problem with the transition between primary and secondary education, and that it has an impact on children. We know that that is exaggerated for people with emotional and behavioural difficulties and other special needs, because Ofsted has told us so. 
 The second issue that I want to flesh outI mentioned it in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Daventryis that superimposed on the problem of people moving from one institution to another is the possibility that their needs might change. It is worth re-emphasising that, although we tend to think of special needs as static, many are dynamic. They change as people develop and get older, and as the condition from which they suffer changes. That has a real impact on their abilities and disabilities, and their capacity to deal with change. 
 Some 10 per cent. of children have an illness that can cause acquired brain injury, and an enormous number of children and young people are treated for brain injury. Established evidence shows that communication between different agencies that deal with such children and young peoplefor example, the health service and educationis typically rather poor. We know from the UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum, Headway and other agencies that complaints have arisen. The Minister has addressed the issue in the House, saying that the Government are aware of the problem and are looking at ways to improve co-ordination. However, we should remember that the problems are real. 
 Given that transition presents a particular problem in respect of special needs, and given the even greater difficulty for those with a dynamic special need, the least that we can do is to ensure that provision follows a continuum, and that the Bill enshrines an obligation for agencies involved in statutory and further education to communicate better. That would ensure good communication, because all the wisdom and knowledge gained during the early education of an individual would be transmitted to the further education institution. 
 Like many suggestions and proposals made during our deliberations, the new clause would add to the Bill and is in no way a negative or spoiling clause. In my judgment, it would strengthen Ministers in achieving what they claim to want to achieve. If it is not accepted, results are likely to remain variable.

Mr Nick St Aubyn: I shall speak briefly. Having listened with interest to the platonic relationship between my Front-Bench colleagues, I hope to support them in an appropriate role, although my knowledge of Greek does not enable me to describe it exactly.
 I am concerned about the Learning and Skills Council, to which reference has been made. Although I did not participate in the Standing Committee that considered the relevant legislation, I have corresponded with the director of education for my education authority, who was concerned to discover that responsibility for all post-16 provision will shift to the Learning and Skills Council in 2002. For that reason, the new clause might be of even greater importance, because it would protect the interests of children in such circumstances.

Tim Boswell: A simple point that should be made clear. Regardless of how the legal labels or responsibilities change, there will still be a point at which responsibility will be passed on, and the new clause would ensure satisfaction in respect of the continuum that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings described.

Mr Nick St Aubyn: My hon. Friend has worded the new clause in such a way that it can envisage every eventuality.
 Will the Minister explain how the Learning and Skills Council will cope with its new responsibility in respect of children with special educational needs? My local director of education in Surrey has expressed serious concerns about whether the new learning and skills councils will be up to speed in all their areas of responsibility. It is regrettable that, as a result of the transition from training and enterprise councils to learning and skills councils, many people who were involved in the sector and had a great deal of knowledge have decided to move on. There is always an argument for bringing in new blood and taking a fresh approach. However, those coming into the learning and skills councils are fresh to the field and, although they may bring with them valuable business experience and a wider view of what is required, they are on a very steep learning curve. That is especially true with regard to special educational needs. People may need more time to come up to speed, given that they will be responsible for all post-16 education in just a year's time. 
 Having been in correspondence not only with the director of education in Surrey, but with the leadership of our local college, I know that people fear that the LSCs are having difficulty in achieving the breadth of expertise that they will need in time to take on their new responsibilities. In that context, will the Minister explain how the Bill will protect the interests of those with special educational needs as they enter post-16 education, and say whether she agrees that the new clause would bolster their interests and give them the added protection that they need?

Margaret Hodge: I am pleased that we are having this short debate about the difficult issue of transition. It is difficult to get it right in theoryalthough I believe that we have achieved that through the framework of the Billand even more difficult to convert that theory into practice. Having had long discussions with people with a wide range of disabilities, not least with learning difficulties and severe brain injuries, I know that transition is of great concern to them. They worry about whether services are properly planned, and whether they can take equipment across various institutions. The Government are constantly trying to address those concerns.
 As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I sat here thinking about all those Greek analogies, we felt that it was all Greek to us and that we could not cope. We were then helped by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who said that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings ought to have said that he feels like Boswell following Dr. Johnson. 
 We believe that the Bill provides the appropriate legal cover to ensure that children, throughout their time at school and as they move into adulthood, are protected properly during the period of transition. Turning that into operational effectiveness is the key issue that we will all have to work on, and it would be absurd for us to promise in Committee today that everything will work smoothly, especially in the early days. As the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said, in establishing new institutions there are bound to be hiccups on the way until people have been properly trained in their new jobs and are used to them. However, the structure of the system is appropriate and has enough checks and balances to ensure the protection of individuals as children or as adults as they move through the educational system. 
 The Secretary of State always has the power to intervene if he believes that a school is not responding appropriately. That might apply in cases such as those to which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referredfor example, when it is necessary to determine whether a change in an individual's disability or condition has been properly assessed and responded to. 
 Disabled students' transition from school to further education and training should be appropriately catered for. That is why, under section 140 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, statemented pupils going on to post-16 education or training will be assessed during their last school year. That can also be arranged for other young people with special educational needs. The new Connexions service will be the agent for ensuring that such assessments take place. 
 We are developing a framework to support the Connexions service's personal advisers in their assessment and planning work with young people. We are also working with the post-16 disability consortium to ensure that it meets the needs of young people with learning difficulties and disabilities, about whom the whole Committee is concerned, and that the Secretary of State carries out the new responsibilities under section 140 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. 
 We also expect the new learning and skills councils and the Connexions service's personal advisers to work closely with further education colleges and other providers, and with the young people, to ensure delivery on what is agreed as a result of the assessments. We aim to meet the needs of young people with learning difficulties, and to provide them with a smoother transition into post-16 provision. That is why the 2000 Act introduced changes to transition planning. It should take place from the time of the young person's first annual review of their statement after their 14th year, which, under the revised codes, will happen in year nine. The revised codes will contain strengthened guidance on transition planning, reflecting the establishment of the Connexions service.

Tim Boswell: The Minister is being helpful, but for the avoidance of doubt, will she confirm that some of the transitional duties will bite on children with special needs who are not statemented, although the duties are more specific towards those who are?

Margaret Hodge: I am happy to confirm that. We hope that section 140 assessments will build on previous work, which will help the transition process.
 I will address some of the specific concerns that hon. Members have raised. Under section 13 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, the Connexions service and the learning and skills councils will have a responsibility to have regard to the needs of learners with difficulties or disabilities. That provision was included in the Act by an amendment in another place, to ensure that all those connected with the learning and skills councils, and the institutions for which they are responsible, properly meet such people's needs. The combination of section 140 assessments and section 13 duties should persuade Opposition Members that we have tried to create proper transition protection. 
 Summer holidays have been mentioned. When a young person moves from school to college, the college will be responsible for preparing for admission. The Connexions service will probably be responsible for general support during the holiday period because it will have undertaken the assessment during the student's latter days at school. 
 Several hon. Members mentioned the provision of information on transition. The current SEN code of practice gives advice on the transfer of information, and that will be strengthened in the revised code. The Connexions service will seek the agreement of students and parents for the transfer of information. A statement of the SEN transitional plan will be sent to the Department of Social Services and post-16 providers. Information will be properly shared so that the best services can be provided to the pupil in transition. 
 The hon. Member for Daventry asked whether the views of the pupil or young student would be considered during the transition period. The current SEN code of practice advises that the views of pupils must be taken in account. The revised code and supplementary guidance will strengthen that advice, especially on transition. The principles that it must be young people centred and must consider their views lie at the heart of the Connexions service. 
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings asked what would happen if someone's condition changed during his or her period in a post-16 institution. I reassure him that the Connexions service has the power to assess any young person of up to 25 years of age whom it believes to have special educational needs.

Tim Boswell: On the competence of the individual components of the Connexions service, we have heard a great deal about personal mentors, and I have exchanged parliamentary questions and written answers in relation to the qualifications required. If there are to be such assessments in the Connexions service, will the Minister assure us that those who carry them out will be fully competent on educational grounds? Even if they are not front-line advisers, will they have recourse to persons capable of ensuring that assessments are seen to be professionally respectable?

Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman raised that issue during consideration of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. As he knows, personal advisers will be drawn from a range of backgrounds, depending on the needs of young people in the partnership area. It will be important for personal adviser networks to include personnel who have special knowledge and expertise in dealing with learning difficulty and disability issues. The hon. Gentleman should be reassured to learn that that will include specialist careers advisers. We are piloting a training programme for personal advisers in the Connexions service, which will include training on the Connexion assessment framework, which sets out the process by which personal advisers can make assessments of students. They will therefore know what duties are owed to students, and institutions will be clear on their obligations.
 I have covered most of the specific issues raised in a debate that concerned transition rather than the rights of individuals to seek redress during the transition period, which is why I have focused on that. Following my reassurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can withdraw new clause 4.

Tim Boswell: As I said on the previous new clause, we have had a good discussion on an important issue of substance and legality. Opposition Members have had some reservations about the operation of the Learning and Skills Council, though, we should record, in fairness, and following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, that the LSC has been in existence for all of four days: if it has not yet bedded down, we can understand why. The same applies to the Connexions service, which is being rolled out across the country and has not yet extended nationally. We may be sceptical about how it will fit together, but the Minister has demonstrated at least that there is a principle of provision. The issue is being addressed in principle, but there is a great deal more to be done in practice. However, in a spirit of goodwill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5 - Unreasonable action

`.After section 496(2) of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted
 ``(3) In connection with the operation of this section as it applies to Part IV of this Act (Special Educational Needs), any conduct by any body which fails to give priority to the educational interests of a particular child with special needs (provided only that this is not inconsistent with the duty on that body to provide efficient education for other children) may be held to be unreasonable action for the purposes of this Act.''.'.[Mr. Boswell.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Tim Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 It will soon be apparent to the Committee, if it is not already, that I am no lawyer. It is foolish and potentially expensive to pretend to be a lawyer when one is not. However, my daughter is a judicial review buffI shall return to that in a momentand I have been fascinated, ever since I served in the Department in which the Minister serves, by issues of reasonability and behaviour. 
 One reason for that is that Mr. Ricks, the chief legal adviser to what was then the Department for Education, was the author of an estimable little book, ``The Judge over your Shoulder'', a guide for civil servants. We discussed earlier whether we looked in the glass in the morning, and what we thought about when we did. Ever since being at that Department, when I lookmetaphoricallyin the glass every morning, I ask myself, ``Am I being reasonable?'' That is a legal term, but it is a jolly good discipline for Ministers and persons in all kinds of public office. 
 I cannot give the Committee a legal lecture, but I will explain the thinking behind the new clause. I owe a debt of gratitude to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Redditch. Had it not been for her response to an earlier new clause and amendments tabled to clause 1, I would not have found the references that have enabled me to construct the new clause, albeit imperfectly. 
 As I understand it, any public bodyone that is publicly financed, or has some public handleis, in principle, open to judicial review or to the intervention of the courts over the way in which it conducts its duties. The body and those who conduct its business have a duty to be reasonable. The so-called Wednesbury rules, although they do not operate quite as they used to, set out the groundwork for this important area of law, which did not exist in the United Kingdom until 30 or 40 years ago. Lord Denning was perhaps the person most responsible for that. The aim is to ensure that public officials, including Ministers, behave in a proper manner. That applies to schools, colleges, local education authorities, learning and skills councils and any publicly funded bodies. They must act reasonably. 
 That reasonability does not mean that somebody who intervenes to stop a public authority's decision is required to agree or disagree with it. A decision may be overturned only on grounds of process. In other words, if a competent authority makes a decision in good faith, based on the facts known to it, the decision cannot be overturned simply because the Secretary of State, Parliament or the courts think that another decision should have been taken. Proper intervention can occur only when no reasonable person could possibly have come to the decision taken. 
 An attempt to put reasonability into the process implies that a body's conduct is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have contemplated it. That is not a matter of a difference of professional view, but of serious professional failure. That will relate to the intervention of the Secretary of State, which is touched on in the new clause. 
 The new clause would insert new subsection (3) in section 496(2) of the Education Act 1996. I am sure that all members of the Committee are thoroughly familiar with that, but for anyone who is not, the relevant chapter is headed ``Ancillary functions of Secretary of State''. Just as the Secretary of State could not intervene unless someone had behaved unreasonably, within the broad terms that I have defined, nor could he continually jump up and down to intervene in matters in which a school or LEA had not done exactly as he wanted. I construe that to mean that the Secretary of State has a fall-back power. Indeed, section 495, the first of the chapter, deals with the Secretary of State's role in resolving disputes as a kind of court of last resort. 
 We proposein the spirit of our earlier discussions about the rights of the childthat the Secretary of State should have a reserve power to intervene if, in the conduct of special education, any body had acted unreasonably within the broad non-legal terms that I have described. That would mean simply that he took a view different from that of an LEA or board of governors; there would have to be some systematic failure to carry out their duties in relation to education. 
 The Secretary of State would not want to intervene all the time. Moreover, in reality it is not only the Secretary of State, but junior Ministers and officials who may become involved. I can remember only one case, concerning the conduct of a certain matter in further education, in which I could have been tempted to intervene. I was extremely reluctant to do so, and ultimately avoided it. Such interventions are contemplated only once a year, or even once a decade. 
 Ministers may take the view that they already have the power to intervene under section 496 if an LEA or governing body is failing to promote the interests of a particular child. However, the new clause would ensure that failure to put the child first could be an unreasonable act. I spoke at great length at an earlier stage about the rights of the child. I am sure that all members of the Committee agree that children with special educational needs should come first, with the caveat that that priority should be consistent with the efficient education of other children. The new clause would provide for that. We are not saying to the LEA or school, ``Because you have one child, or a group of children, with special needs, you have to consider them at all costs and without any regard to any other children and their efficient education.'' We seek a balance. Our abiding concern is that an LEA should put children first and should be seen to be doing so. 
 First, that is, in a sense, a kind of forensic test of the fall-back power. The Secretary of State will not issue a circular on day one saying that SEN children must be put first. There could, however, be a complaint about which the LEA is intransigent. If it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that the conduct of the LEA or body is, for no good reason, not putting the interests of children firsta good reason would be, for example, the efficient education of other childrenhe or she should be able to say that that is unreasonable. There should be a way to change the decision and to lean on the body to get something done. The kind of situation that I have in mind would involve an LEA that systematically refuses to issue a statement, in which case the matter could go to tribunal. However, it might be that the way in which the LEA leant on individual parents to try to dissuade them from going to tribunal was cynical and not in the interests of children. The new clause is an attempt to put children first. 
 Secondly, and I am grateful to the Minister for her earlier response on this matter, all our earlier discussions about giving priority to the child were in the context of admission to mainstream education. Opposition Members think it important that there should be a balance of provision among the various options and an effective choice for parents. However, that idea is tangled up with the question of whether there should be mainstream or other provision, which is partly a result of the architecture of the Bill. The Committee will recalland Ministers have said thisthat the Special Educational Consortium did not want an amendment. It did not want to retain the caveat about the educational interests of the child because it felt that LEAs had abused it. I do not accept that, but I can see the line of argument in relation to admissions to mainstream schools. If there is a debate about what is appropriate, there is not a level playing field for parents, who are not experts, and the SEN experts in the LEA who think a child unsuitable for mainstream inclusion. 
 New clause 5 is more neutral than that because it is not confined to admissions. It does not reopen the fraught and sometimes theological debates between special and mainstream education. It simply states that an LEA or body, including a school or governing body, has a general duty to act reasonably when it conducts special education for children with special educational needs, and that is incontestable. In our view, that embraces a duty to put the educational interests of the child first, and not to put anything ahead of those, provided that that is consistent with the efficient education of other children. That would provide an objective for the conductors of education, the authority and the schools, and it would provide a means of recourse to parents if they felt that that duty was not being discharged. 
 I suspect that the Minister will say that we are in tribunal territory, and I can understand that. However, it would strengthen safeguards for the child if the compass of reasonability could give priority to the educational interests of a child with special needs.

John Hayes: In a real sense, this discussion turns attention away from admissions, although it is true that admissions might give rise to questions of reasonableness. Necessarily, and certainly predictably, the Committee has tended to focus on getting a child into a particular type of school, be it mainstream or special. We have perhaps dealt insufficiently with what happens thereafter, and nor, perhaps, has the Bill, although I do not want to make a judgment in that regard. The tribunal is part of that process, but my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry makes a persuasive case for the need for an additional safeguard to give parents confidence that, once a decision is reached on the location of education provision, continuing issues will be dealt with properly.

Tim Boswell: I am drawing my remarks to a close, and my hon. Friend has helped me. In securing a child's educational best interests, the first safeguards are the professionalism of the local authority special educational needs officers, special educational needs co-ordinators in individual schools and the system itself. One should not demonise local authority officers. They are under great pressure and try to do their best with the resources available, but certain cases give cause for concern, and the question arises of recourse.
 As my hon. Friend said, a great deal falls within the remit of the tribunal. However, to be positive, we seek not merely a defensive, ``You-can-complain-along-these-lines'' route, but a statutory obligation and understanding that local authority officers and others should put the child's special educational interests first. No Committee member will disagree with that principle, although we need to argue about how to secure it. None the less, it is right to end as we began by reminding ourselves that that is the most important issue that we must consider. We must satisfy not just ourselves, but parents and future generations, that the arrangements to secure that objective are the strongest possible.

Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Member for Daventry pointed out, we conclude by returningprobably rightlyto the important issue of the child's needs and best interests. I am sure that, like the Government, all Committee members believe that the interests of children with special educational needs and their peers must be safeguarded, and I hope that the Government's commitment to that is not in doubt. The hon. Gentleman's choice of the sections of the Education Act 1996 on which to focus has proved helpful. I hope to give some reassurance about the possibilities to which existing sections give rise, and what the Department can do, and has done, in that regard.
 In the debate on clause 1, I highlighted the way in which the Secretary of State could use his powers under sections 496, 497 and 497A of the 1996 Act to help protect the interests of the child. Clearly, the hon. Member for Daventry has reflected on that and is trying to make explicit the link between section 496 and the Bill. We cannot accept the new clause, largely because we believe that children's best interests are already safeguarded. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, however, it is important to point out that the Secretary of State's powers of intervention are already clear. I assure the Committee that section 496 of the 1996 Act allows the Secretary of State to intervene when LEAs and governing bodies of maintained schools are performing their functions unreasonably, or propose to do so, and that includes those functions that relate to special educational needs. 
 The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of ``unreasonable'' was reasonable. If an LEA or maintained school abuses new section 316--the hon. Gentleman said that that is not the primary target of the new clause, but it is an important consideration--the Secretary of State will be able to act. If the abuse goes beyond acting unreasonably and amounts to acting in bad faith, the LEA's actions may be judicially reviewed. 
 When we discussed the Secretary of State's powers of intervention last week, the hon. Gentleman said, at column 68 of Hansard, that he hoped that we might be 
``able to take the final step and achieve a system that stipulates . . . that LEAs and schools must do right by special educational needs children.''[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 March 2001; c. 68.] 
The Government applaud that sentiment. I am happy to give an assurance that the statutory guidance that will back up the new inclusion framework will set out clearly the Secretary of State's powers of intervention and the general circumstances in which they can be used to safeguard the interests of children with special educational needs. I believe that that is the hon. Gentleman's main concern. 
 I confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has used the powers to protect pupils with special educational needs, and I shall give some examples that will, I hope, reassure Opposition Members. Section 497 was used recently to direct a maintained school in London to admit a child whose statement named it as the school preferred by the child's parents. Its failure to admit the child was in default of a statutory duty, and, in reaching his decision, my right hon. Friend had to assure himself that the school was suitable for the child's age, ability and special educational needs. 
 As the hon. Member for Daventry said, sometimes it is not the use of particular powers but the fact of their existence that helps Ministers and others to achieve the objectives that we all share. Officials, acting on our instructions, have called in a number of local education authorities when we have had concerns, often promoted by parents, about special educational needs provision. Those concerns go wider than simply the issue of admission to a particular school. For example, an authority was called in because it was operating a blanket policy not to quantify provision in statements, and that issue has caused much concern as we have examined revisions to the code. We also called in an LEA in which a child had been out of school for a long time because of a dispute about the school to be named in the statement. Those meetings were held on the basis that the authority had been called in to justify why the Secretary of State should not act. In such cases, the mere threat of using his powers resulted in LEAs putting matters right as quickly as possible. 
 The hon. Gentleman raised the matters of leaning on parents and cases in which LEAs refuse to issue a statement. He was right to say that if an LEA refuses to issue a statement, that decision could be taken to the tribunal, and that if a parent complains of LEA conduct leading to the statement decision, the Secretary of State could investigate in a similar way. If bad faith were alleged, judicial review could be more appropriate. That shows that the Secretary of State's existing powers of intervention, provided by sections 496, 497 and 497A, allow him to take action to help pupils with special educational needs. 
 I should point out some of the dangers of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman has argued that it is not about inclusion or the placement of children. It would, however, undermine our proposals to strengthen the right to a mainstream place for children with special educational needs. I accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that its sole intention was to protect children, but it would have a similar effect to the reinstatement of provisions in the first caveat of section 316. It would allow LEAs and maintained schools wide scope to argue that inclusion in the mainstream was not in a child's educational interests. 
 I pray in aid the arguments of Dr. Phillipa Russell, the director of the Council for Disabled Children. In a response to the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), she noted concern that the needs of the child were ignored, but pointed out that clause 1 amended only one section of the Education Act 1996. Dr. Russell said that the needs of the child were explicitly referred to elsewhere in the Act, the associated regulations and the code of practice. 
 That brings us back to arguments that I made in relation to amendments tabled to clause 1. The interests of children are widely covered, and are central to everything that we are trying to do in terms of special educational needs.

Tim Boswell: I am listening with interest to the Minister's explanation. It would help if she were to write to Committee members to explain in which other parts of the Education Act 1996 the needs of the child were put first. It would be useful for that to be codified, so that we could review it before subsequent consideration of the Bill.

Jacqui Smith: I am certainly willing to write to Committee members about the way in which education legislation and the SEN framework ensure that children's educational needs are appropriately met. That is the crux of the argument. There is no dispute about the importance of ensuring that the interests of all children are met. Our argument is about the extent to which they are properly represented in legislation, the extent to which they could be highlighted in statutory guidance on inclusion, and the extent to which the Secretary of State's powers have and can be used to ensure that children's interests can be safeguarded and that LEAs and schools cannot act unreasonably.
 As I have given those assurances, and as the gap between our positions has narrowed, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can withdraw the motion.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful for the Minister's response, particularly for her undertaking to detail the safeguards to the Committee. Even if one could find them by looking through legislation, it would be useful to have them consolidated and codified.
 I remain in considerable doubt about whether perverse effects would occur. That was, as she acknowledged, one of my reasons for bringing the argument away from an explicit consideration of admissions policy and widening it to deal with the conduct of various bodies with respect to the Education Act. She has noticed the approximation being resorted to in the discussion of this matter, which has been based on the common principle of wanting to put the child first and the common understanding that, although most local authorities and schools want to do the right thing by children with special educational needs, there are deficiencies that sometimes go beyond mere inadvertence. They are sometimes institutional, and it is necessary to tackle them and put them right. 
 We are not hugely at odds on that issue. My hon. Friends and I remain concerned that unless explicit provision is made for the educational rights of the child, those rights may not be well served. The argument that it would be perverse to assert those educational rights is odd in a world filled with attention to human rights. We have had the incorporation into United Kingdom law of the European convention on human rights, for example. It is both odd and implausible to argue that declaring a child to have educational rights could subvert the exercise of those rights. 
 I do not want to replay past arguments, however. The Opposition will closely consider what the Minister has said. I welcome, for example, the fact that she has added more flesh to the argument that the Secretary of State really has teeth and will call in delinquent local education authorities and beat them up if necessary. I shall study with interest the safeguards that the Minister has said already exist. I shall seek an overview and try to judge whether those safeguards will be sufficient. 
 I should like the Minister to do something too, however. Will she consider whether, beyond today's discussion and my imperfect drafting and knowledge of administrative law, some wise heads can formulate a way to safeguard the special educational interests of the child, while minimising, to the satisfaction of the Minister and others, the likelihood of those rights being subverted in practice? I do not ask her to commit herself, but to reflect on what I have asked. 
 We have been afforded a fortunate opportunity in considering the Bill. Having thought that we should be running to the country tonight to begin other activities, we now find that we have another month. The opportunity for proper consideration on Report has already been set down as parliamentary business, and I cannot think that it is beyond the wit of man to come up with something to satisfy us. I shall see what I can offer, and perhaps the Minister can do likewise. We should have a benign arms race to find a way to safeguard a right that we all think is important and to find an approach to advancing the special educational interests of children that would not risk doing the opposite. That is the paradox that we face. 
 With genuine good will, in what has been a constructive Committee, and pending a further round of discussion on this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Jacqui Smith: I rise before we formally conclude the business of the Committee to express our thanks to you, Mr. O'Brien, and to Sir David Madel, for your chairmanship over the past two weeks. The hon. Member for Daventry established at the outset the aim of keeping the Committee good natured and constructive, and I think that it has been. That has been due in large part to the high standard of chairmanship.
 I would also like to pass on the Committee's thanks to the Clerks for the way in which the Committee has proceeded. I would particularly like to thank my officials, who have done sterling work. Like all good officials, they help us to ensure that the legislation gets on to the statute book, is effective and can make the sort of difference that we hope it will. 
 I thank my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, who has made good use of her understanding of and commitment to disability rights in her contributions. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) who have helped to ensure that the Committee's progress has been civilised, but progress none the less. 
 My hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) and for Southampton, Test have played a key role as Parliamentary Private Secretaries in the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has also been responsible this morning for providing some of the best lines of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. 
 I thank Members on both sides of the Committee for their informed contributions and interventions. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who brought educational experience to our discussions and highlighted the issues of particular relevance to Wales and Scotland. All of us wish my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South well in her recovery from her accident at the weekend. 
 On the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Members for St. Ives (Mr. George) and Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) were supportive of the passage of the Bill. They were also creditably selective in the amendments that they chose to table. They raised important points that deserved discussion. 
 The hon. Members for Daventry and for South Holland and The Deepings brought good humour and important discussion to the Committee. With his classical allusions, the hon. Member for Daventry added to our understanding of Greek and Latin, although members of the Committee were disappointed to learn that his erudition had more to do with the names of his pets than with a deep interest in classical civilisations. 
 In the case of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, we learned something about his appreciation of wine. Hon. Members will remember that the hon. Gentleman returned from lunch last Tuesday having enjoyed half a bottle of Chateau Musar. Given my ministerial responsibility, I have a passion for education and teaching, so I thought that it would be useful very briefly to educate the Committee about that wine. According to the ``Which? Wine Guide 2001'', Chateau Musar is a Lebanese wine. It is 
``well structured and not overblown. It is usually released...having undergone painstaking ageing and final blending.'' 
In that it is not unlike the Government's arguments. 
 In conclusion, the Committee has delivered, after detailed discussion, a Bill that will fulfil the Government's objectives. It will improve educational opportunities for those with special needs. It will represent a positive statement of inclusion while maintaining the excellence of provision and choice for parents. It will improve support for parents, and information and conciliation services that will enable parents to be more confident in the system and therefore more able to support their children. It will improve the processes of the special educational needs framework. The Bill's disability provisions are a major step in outlawing discrimination in education on the basis of disability. They will open up opportunities for disabled children in schools and promote a strategic approach to improving access in all our schools. 
 We heard on Second Reading and in Committee that that approach is important not only for individuals but for all children in our schools, and fundamental for the creation of an inclusive society. In its post-16 and lifelong provisions, the Bill recognises that education without discrimination is important throughout our lives. In opening up opportunities in further, higher and adult education, we create better chances for individuals and make our society and our economy more inclusive. 
 I thank you once again, Mr. O'Brien, and hope that the Bill makes good speed as it goes through the rest of its stages.

Tim Boswell: I echo, not for the first time, the Minister's remarks, particularly those about you, Mr. O'Brien, and Sir David, who have chaired the Committee so well and contributed to the tone of proceedings. You have rebuked us when it has been necessary, but that has not, mercifully, been all the time. You have certainly not unnerved us with your sternness. I should also like to thank the Clerksas is always important for Opposition Membersfor their assistance in drafting amendments, and the Hansard writers who have had to cope with Greek and Assyrian, but fortunately not the Serbo-Croat of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridgealthough there is still time. Thanks are also due to the police, who have hardly been required to keep order, so far as I have noticed, and to everyone who has taken an interest in the proceedings.
 Turning to my colleagues, I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings both for the substance of his contributions and for having relieved me of some of the burden, as well as for his knowledge of wine and his commitment to special education, particularly for those whose special and educational needs change over time. My thanks go to our Whip, the hon. Member for Uxbridge, and to his counterpart. We have had a pleasant and not inconvenient discussion, which has enabled us to get a great deal done. 
 My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) has a passionate commitment to choice in provision and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford has intervened with a great general knowledge of education, and some interest in this particular area, convincing me from time to time. The hon. Members for St. Ives and for Oxford, West and Abingdon have kept to the spirit of these proceedings and have made useful and instructive contributions. 
 It is always nice when Government Back Benchers are allowed an outing and have something to say, which they do in this area. They have been authoritative and helpful, and sometimes challenging. I hope that I can say to the Ministers that it takes two to tango. We have had pleasant discussions. We have not agreed about everything, but we have agreed about objectives and have received some useful assurances. Without impropriety or invidiousness, might I also say that I am grateful, vicariously, to the Ministers' officials, who have provided them with good material, and to their draftspersons. There are Bills that one does not like to read, and there are those that one has an itch to amend technically all the way through. I do not mean to tease the Minister, the hon. Member for Redditch, about her propensity for occasional amendment, and I have felt that I am dealing with a Bill that has a shape and structure, and even an internal coherence, and that is welcome. 
 Drawing on my experience in the Department, I have always felt that it has been particularly strong on special educational needs and that some of its best people have addressed themselves to that, as is right. We would not be on the Committee if we were not committed to this area. It has given the lie to a purely instrumental or Benthamite view of educationthat it is simply about productivity, competitiveness, national wealth or anything else. If my studies in the classics, or any of the indulgences that we have had in Committee, mean anything, it is the importance of the issue in itself. When we consider the interests of children with special educational needs, and further provision for them as they grow into adults, we must remember that they are not only special, but precious. That is why we are here, enjoying the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Brien. We look forward to further consideration of the Bill in due course.

Andrew George: I do not want to detain the Committee any longer than necessary. I want to associate myself with all the remarks made by the hon. Member for Daventry and the Minister about how our debates have been conducted. They entirely reflected how I feel. I thank you, Mr. O'Brien, and through you Sir David, for the manner in which the Committee has been chaired.
 Given the line taken by the Conservatives on Second Reading, I was concerned that the Committee would be more combative and difficult. I was encouraged by the nature of our discussions, and especially by how the hon. Member for Daventry presented his concerns about the Bill. As has emerged, his amendments were largely probing, as this is a good Bill and to be welcomed. We do not want to delay it finding its way on to the statute book. I did my best to contribute some of the classical allusions by using Antigone as a metaphor for disabled people. There will be less suffering from inappropriate dictat as a result of the Bill. 
 I congratulate the Government on the Bill. Our debates have helped to emphasise why it is broadly welcome, and the amendments have helped to tease out the elucidation of issues that have concerned us. They have also identified potential weaknesses that must be monitored, which has also been helpful.

Tom Levitt: I should like to add a few comments from a Back-Bencher's perspective. I echo everything that has been said about your chairmanship, Mr. O'Brien, and all who have helped to make the Committee run so freely.
 There have been some personal revelations. The hon. Member for Daventry reminded me that we used to debate together for the entertainment of sixth-formers 20 years ago. Not only did I teach in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, but I have discovered that he used to live in mine. 
 On every clause, us ordinary, time-serving Back-Bench Members have seen a positive benefit for our individual constituents. I think of the girl of 16 with severe special needs, who is at the transitional stage and considering further education. I think of the parent who wants an improved statement for her child. I think of another family in which the toddler has special educational needs. A lifetime of uncertainty could be in front of that family, were it not for the framework of intentions provided by the Bill. 
 I know that several members of the Committee take a special interest in the education of those with hearing impairments. It is important that informed choice be maintained for the relevant families, whatever the whys and wherefores and pros and cons of different approaches. 
 Earlier, I mentioned Chapel-en-le-Frith infant school, and how wonderful its enhanced resource facility for children with special needs is now that it has been running for a year. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch, hides her light under a bushel. With admirable timing, she announced this week that the John Duncan special school in Buxton is to be replaced by a public-private partnership building in Chapel-en-le Fritha blessed townalongside the new Chapel-en-le Frith high school. That is even better news for those children in my constituency who have severe special educational needs. In this week of all weeks, it is wonderful to have the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend. 
 The Bill provides a legislative framework, and the example that I have given shows that the Government put their money where their mouth is. We have done a great service to children with special educational needs. I am sure that I speak for all Back-Bench Members in saying that it has been a pleasure to serve on the Committee.

Mr Bill O'Brien: On behalf of my co-Chairman, Sir David Madel, I express my sincere thanks to hon. Members for their kind remarks. I said at the Programming Sub-Committee that we would be fair and allow full debate. I have been impressed with the debates, which were more than adequate. I look forward to the Bill being enacted, so that those who have problems with special needs education will be able to call on it. I thank the Clerk and Hansard for their help, without which our proceedings would have been meaningless.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'Clock.